coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Neryungri.
5.  On 10 April 2002 the Nyuringri Town Court granted the applicant’s civil action against the Neryungri Town police department and awarded her 16,683.23 Russian roubles (“RUR”). On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal. On the same day the judgment became final and enforceable.
6.  On 3 December 2002 the Nyuringri Town Court issued a writ of execution.
7.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Neryungri Town police department.
8.  On 8 December 2004 the Neryungri Town Administration transferred RUR 16,683.23 to the applicant’s account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mátészalka, Hungary.
5.  In proceedings instituted by the applicant, on 12 November 1993 the Supreme Court finally declared that his former employer had terminated his employment unlawfully and granted him severance pay and damages. Simultaneously, on 25 May 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Nyíregyháza Labour Court against the employer claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
6.  On 15 June 1995 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On appeal, on 26 June 1996 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court granted the applicant damages plus accrued interest.
7.  On 15 April 1997 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed the second-instance decision in its part concerning the pecuniary damages, and remitted this aspect of the case to the Regional Court.
8.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 29 September 1998 the Regional Court granted damages plus accrued interest to the applicant. This decision was partially quashed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 8 July 1999 for procedural shortcomings.
9.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 29 February 2000 the Regional Court granted some damages plus accrued interest to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his action. On 29 March 2001 the Supreme Court’s review bench partially quashed this decision as the Regional Court had miscalculated the amount granted to the applicant.
10.  In the proceedings resumed for the third time, on 30 October 2001 the Regional Court granted the applicant damages plus accrued interest.
4.  Mr Vladimir Oleynik (the first applicant) and Mr Dmitriy Baybarza (the second applicant) were born in 1935 and 1941 respectively, and live in Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.
5.  On 26 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody City Court awarded the first applicant UAH 7,929.74[1] against the Electron-Gaz Company (a State owned entity; hereafter “the Company”) in salary arrears. On 18 October 2000 the second applicant was awarded 7,040.03[2] against the Company. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.
6.  On 2 April 2002 the Zhovti Vody City Prosecutor informed the second applicant that the delay in the execution of numerous court judgments against the Company was due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises, which significantly limited the resources for refunding the Company’s salary arrears.
7.  On 19 April 2002 the Department of Industry, Transportation and Communications of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration issued a letter, stating that improvement of the Company’s financial performance (including that of its salary payments) was a matter of concern for various State authorities. In particular, the State Property Fund was preparing the Company’s development plan which was to be presented at the next stockholders’ meeting.
8.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business.
9.  The judgments given in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced.
6.  In 1993, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated a part of a plot of land in Ankara belonging to the applicants and several other persons. A committee of experts assessed the value of the applicants’ land and the sum fixed thereby was paid when the expropriation took place.
7.  On 28 December 1993 the applicants, along with twenty-one co‑owners, lodged a case with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance, requesting increased compensation.
8.  On 14 September 1994 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance awarded the plaintiffs additional compensation of 5,305,080,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 126,200 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 15 February 1993. The amount of compensation that was awarded to the applicants was TRL 2,269,264,010 (approximately EUR 53,980).
9.  On 30 January 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.
10.  On 17 February 1998 the administration paid the plaintiffs a total of TRL 13,208,453,000 (approximately EUR 53,900). The applicants received TRL 5,649,955,705 (approximately EUR 23,000).
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kerecsend, Hungary.
5.  On 1 March 2001 criminal investigations were instituted against 30 suspects, including the applicant (a businesswoman) on suspicion of several counts of tax fraud, involving the issue of some 250 fictitious invoices. The applicant’s company was concerned in each count of fraud. The material of the ensuing investigation amounted to 2,180 pages.
6.  On 10 April 2001 tax investigators searched the applicant’s house for documents and arrested her. The applicant alleges that the tax investigators’ behaviour was harsh and insensitive in that they hindered her for several minutes from providing her minor son with a spray-inhaler when he suffered an asthma attack during the search. Moreover, she submits that, on her arrest, she was forcibly seated in the authority’s car, in which the tax investigators touched her inappropriately and made abusive remarks.
She was kept in police custody for three days.
7.  On 18 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the tax investigators’ conduct. On 23 August 2001 the Heves County Investigating Office refused to proceed with the complaint, considering that the investigators had carried out the search and the arrest in accordance with the law. The Office noted that the applicant had complained about the incident only after a delay of more than three months. On 12 October and 15 November 2001 and 4 March 2002, respectively, the Eger District and the Heves County Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office dismissed the applicant’s further complaints.
8.  On 30 May 2002 the police again searched the applicant’s house.
In her submissions to the Court filed on 11 February 2004, the applicant stated that on that occasion she had been ill-treated by the police officers and that the latter had not allowed the emergency medical staff, which had been called to her son on account of another asthma attack, to enter the house.
On 12 March 2003 the Investigating Office discontinued the investigation into the incident. On 18 April 2003 the Eger District Public Prosecutor’s Office finally dismissed the applicant’s complaint.
9.  Meanwhile, on 28 April and 18 October 2001, 17 January 2002 and 28 April 2003, the applicant was interrogated by the Heves County Criminal Directorate of the Tax Authority. Moreover, between April 2001 and May 2003 altogether 31 suspects were interrogated on various occasions. More than 40 witnesses were heard and several house searches and confrontations of witnesses took place. Furthermore, 14 opinions were obtained from expert accountants.
10.  On 5 May 2003 the proceedings were discontinued against six suspects.
11.  On 12 June 2003 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was charged with 30 counts of tax fraud and 12 counts of document forgery.
12.  The first hearings were scheduled by the Eger District Court for 28 and 29 October 2004. The proceedings have been pending at first instance ever since.
9.  The applicant, Mrs Myra Xenides-Arestis, is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, who was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.
10.  The applicant owns property in the area of Ayios Memnon (Esperidon Street), in the fenced-up area of Famagusta, that she acquired by way of a gift from her mother. In particular, she owns half a share in a plot of land (plot no. 142, sheet/plan 33/29) with buildings thereon, consisting of one shop, one flat and three houses. One of the houses was her home, where she lived with her husband and children, whereas the rest of the property was used by members of the family and/or rented out to third parties. Furthermore, the applicant partly owns a plot of land (plot no. 158, sheet/plan 33/29) with an orchard (her share being equivalent to 5/48). This was registered in her name on 31 January 1984. The rest of the property is owned by other members of her family.
11.  In August 1974 she was forced by the Turkish military forces to leave Famagusta with her family and abandon their home, property and possessions. Since then she has been prevented from having access to, using and enjoying her home and property, which are under the occupation and the control of the Turkish military forces. According to the applicant, only the Turkish military forces have access to the fenced-up area of Famagusta.
12.  On 23 April 2003 new measures were adopted by the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) regarding crossings from northern to southern Cyprus and vice versa through specified checkpoints. On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the TRNC” enacted “Law no. 49/2003” on compensation for immovable properties located within the boundaries of the “TRNC”, which entered into force on the same day. On 30 July 2003, under Article 11 of this “Law”, an “Immovable Property, Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission” was established in the “TRNC”. The rules of the commission were published in the “TRNC Official Gazette” on 15 August 2003 and the commission was constituted by a decision of the “TRNC Council of Ministers” published in the aforementioned gazette on 18 August 2003.
13.  On 24 April 2004 two separate referendums were held simultaneously in Cyprus on the Foundation Agreement–Settlement Plan (“Annan Plan”) which had been finalised on 31 March 2004. Since the plan was approved in the Turkish-Cypriot referendum but not in the Greek-Cypriot referendum, the Foundation Agreement did not enter into force.
6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently detained in Midyat prison.
7.   On 21 March 2000 the applicant was arrested in Şırnak by members of the anti-terrorist branch of the Şırnak Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party).
8.   In a letter dated 22 March 2000 the Şırnak Security Directorate requested the Şırnak Public Prosecutor to extend the applicant’s detention period until 25 March 2000 together with eight others. On the same day, considering the number of the accused and the difficulty to obtain evidence, the public prosecutor authorised to extend the detention period as requested.
9.  On 24 March 2000 the Şırnak Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the prolongation of the applicant’s custody for another six days on the ground that the interrogation process had not yet been completed.
10.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor. On the same day the Diyarbakır Criminal Court of First Instance ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. 6.  On 20 April 2000 the Public Prosecutor before the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with assisting and abetting and membership of a terrorist organisation.
6.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1975, and 1980 respectively. They were detained in Elazığ Prison in Turkey.
7.  On 14 March 1999 the police raided a flat which was used as a cell by Hezbollah in Mardin. The police officers seized, among other things, three computer hard disks during the operation. The applicants' names were recorded on these hard disks as members of Hezbollah.
8.  On 4 June 1999 the applicants were arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of being members of Hezbollah. On the same day, the police officers drafted arrest protocols stating that the applicants had been arrested in the course of an operation conducted against the members of the illegal organisation.
9.  On 5 June 1999 the public prosecutor of the Diyarbakır State Security Court drew up a list of the materials that were seized during the raid in Mardin in order to place them in the custody of the court, amongst which the computer hard disks were noted.
10.  On 11 June 1999 the applicants gave statements to the police where they accepted the charges against them. On the same day, they were brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, where they denied both the accuracy of the statements taken by the police and all the charges against them. The investigating judge ordered that the applicants be detained on remand.
11.  On 25 June 1999 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing the applicants of being members of Hezbollah pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
12.  At the hearings before the Diyarbakır State Security Court the applicants denied the content of their police statements alleging that they were taken under duress. The court read out the police statements that were taken from M.Ç., M.P. and A.Y. – who were also accused of being members of the same organisation – to the applicants and asked the latter to comment on them. The applicants stated that they did not know these persons, and that they did not accept the parts of the statements that were against them. The court further read out the transcriptions of the hard disks to the applicants and asked them about their counter-arguments against these. They denied the content of these documents. They further stated that they had no idea as to how their names had appeared on the computer hard disks.
13.  On 27 December 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court noted that the applicants' police statements were supported by information gathered from the archive of the organisation and further evidence. It accordingly convicted the applicants of the offence as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The applicants appealed.
14.  The Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in his written submissions recommended that the court uphold the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
15.  On 27 May 2002 the Court of Cassation, having regard, inter alia, to the opinion of the Principal Prosecutor, upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  In May 1992 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and detained on remand. He was subsequently charged with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code and tried before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
6.  On 8 December 1994 the applicant was released pending trial.
7.  On 30 March 1995 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant of the charges brought against him.
8.  On 29 February 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9.  On 25 October 1996 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Kartal Assize Court against the Treasury, pursuant to Law no. 466. The applicant requested a compensation of 2,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for his unjustified detention on remand.
10.  On 2 December 1996 the Kartal Assize Court requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to send the documents pertaining to the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In particular, the first-instance court requested that the documents showing the date on which the judgment had become final be sent promptly in order to determine whether the applicant had filed his compensation claim within the statutory time-limit.
11.  Between 2 December 1996 and 30 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court consistently requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to send the aforementioned documents.
12.  On 10 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court appointed an expert to calculate the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant due to his deprivation of liberty.
13.  On 24 November 1999 the expert submitted his report concerning the amount of pecuniary damage.
14.  On 30 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant a certain amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods the applicant had spent in police custody and in detention on remand.
15.  The applicant and the Ministry of Treasury appealed against the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.
16.  On 5 October 2000 the Court of Cassation held that the amount awarded to the applicant was too low and quashed the judgment of the first‑instance court.
17.  On 9 November 2000 the expert appointed by the first-instance court submitted a report concerning the amount of pecuniary damage the applicant sustained as a result of his deprivation of liberty.
18.  On 10 November 2000 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 1,538,492,740 in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.
19.  The Ministry of Treasury appealed.
20.  On 5 April 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court due to a procedural error.
21.  On 28 June 2001 the Kartal Assize Court once again awarded the applicant TRL 1,538,492,740.
22.  The Ministry of Treasury appealed.
23.  On 8 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Saint Petersburg.
5.  On 12 August 1998 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg against the Governor of St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg committee for housing policy (Комитет по жилищной политике г. Санкт-Петербург), seeking to obtain a flat under a city-funded programme. A copy of the applicant’s statement of claim bears a signature of the registry indicating that the statement was received on 12 August 1998.
6.  Of the three hearings fixed between 24 February and 21 October 1999, two hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear and one hearing was postponed upon the defendant’s request to join another party to the proceedings.
7.  The next hearing, fixed for 16 March 2000, was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims.
8.  Of the four hearings listed between 5 April 2000 and 28 February 2001, three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing was adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings.
9.  On 15 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg held a hearing. A representative of the Governor of St. Petersburg requested to adjourn the proceedings in order to enable the Governor to amend the existing regulation which affected the applicant’s housing rights. The request was granted.
10.  Between 22 May 2001 and 28 March 2002 the district court fixed four hearings. Three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims.
11.   On 8 April 2002 the applicant filed the amended claims.
12.  The hearing of 19 December 2002 was postponed until 1 April 2003 because the defendants did not attend. The Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg sent a written warning to the defendants, informing them that they would be fined if they failed to attend the next hearing.
13.   Three hearings fixed between 1 April and 17 June 2003 were adjourned because the defendants had not attended.
14.  The hearing of 14 October 2003 was rescheduled because the presiding judge had been dismissed from her office.
15.  The hearing fixed for 5 May 2004 was adjourned because the defendants did not appear.
16.  The hearing of 5 July 2004 was adjourned because the applicant was ill.
17.  On 29 September 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg gave the judgment.
18.  On 8 December 2004 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 2004.
19.  On 21 December 2002, 5 January and 9 November 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court and the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation about delays.
20.  On 30 December 2002 and 10 February 2003 a deputy President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg and on 25 March 2004 a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court informed the applicant that the excessive length of the proceedings in his case had been caused by a large number of pending civil cases.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Freising, Germany.
5.  On 8 February 1996 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı) issued an order of expropriation for a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Dinar, a district attached to Afyon, following the earthquake which happened on 1 October 1995. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the amount was paid to the applicant.
6.  On 2 April 1997 the applicant brought an action for additional compensation before the Dinar Civil Court of First Instance.
7.  On 14 August 1997 the first-instance court decided to award the applicant an additional compensation of 3,330,990,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision running from 2 April 1997.
8.  On 22 October 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Dinar Civil Court of First Instance.
9.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision.
10.  On 8 December 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request.
11.  On 20 April and 19 July 1999 the Ministry paid the applicant TRL 6,242,830,425 in additional compensation together with interest.